Who knows if a mission is being faked or not? It's merely assumed to be a real mission because NASA says it is. But they have no idea if it's real, or if it's a sim.

Jeez. I was kinda hoping NASA held all the cards! But I had no idea that we ever said that any of the missions were real. We just did 'em.
But I can tell ya I knew what a SIM was, and the difference between that and a real mission.

You see, flight crews, controllers, support folks, et. all, knew they were doing a SIM on any given day (or...maybe 7 or 8 of them!). The public had no idea about them. There was nothing on TV and no advertised stuff for people to watch.

Real mission days, like for instance, launch day, was alot different. You woke up perhaps a little tense, maybe nervous, most certainly excited. The TV had coverage scheduled all day...for the next 8 to maybe 13 days (people actually had something to see on their TVs, turb. I know you weren't around for it, but it was alot of fun!).

Everyone involved, from the MOCR janitors, to the controllers, the managers, and everyone at the launch control center and the flight crew, really knew it wasn't a SIM.

We never had to say it was real, and we never announced it at all. We just did our work. And a SIM was a SIM, and no one ever knew we were doing one...except those involved. I can't imagine the public giving a damn about a SIM! Maybe wives, girlfriends, etc...but beyond that???

You were just trying to to establish the revolutionary idea that NASA was in charge of Apollo?
You succeeded! NASA was in charge --of the whole thing! iT'S A MAJOR REASON WHY THE WHOLE THING WORKED!

But, the remaninder of your point makes no sense, as no one was ever told by NASA that a real mission was a real mission (NASA did not assume that the general public was stupid, turb. They figured that everyone knew that on July 16, 1969, we were actually launching the first manned lunar landing mission. The odd part is, we did that on that day.
I can tell you this: for those who worked missions, who built spacecraft, who ran missions, and all the people who'd put the best part of a decade of their lives into the program, they knew when it was a sim and when it was real.

Well, OK, that message accross the 10 x 20 in the MOCR,

REAL MISSION TODAY BOYS. WAKE UP!

...kinda helped, some days!

The funny thing is, NASA never had to tell them anything! They knew it!

We just never really needed to tell 'em it wasn't a SIM.
I've probably told you this before, figuring comically that it took, but I cannot imagine the person who might have thought that we should make such an announcement..you know, so that people wouldn't think that this stuff was a SIM. I can't imagine him not being sent for medical treatment, immediately, before his termination...

No, Turbs... Speculation is all that you have. The actual history of the event is that the plan was to use Parkes for the entire Apollo 11 Moonwalk, but since it started early, they were able to use Goldstone at the start, but then switched to Parkes for the rest.

You obviously don't know why it's speculation, because it's certainly not based on the above. Don't worry, I'll point it out for you further along...

Czero 101, on 29 September 2012 - 03:03 PM, said:

So they didn't drop Parkes entirely, did they? No, they didn't. And it seems that not only haven't you read the document you provided as evidence (which I'm sure is completely shocking to absolutely no one) you don't even know the history of the event.

'Dropped entirely' was meant as 'dropped for the entire event'. I guess I was too tired to even notice. But of course, you take a massive leap of logic to make your own conclusions.

Czero 101, on 29 September 2012 - 03:03 PM, said:

Why fake something that relies on using another government's equipment that you do not own or control, when you could just adjust your fake schedule so that the event you want to fake occurs when your own equipment (Goldstone) could be used solely...? This is yet another stumbling point that requires your "theory" to be even more complex and unlikely than it is already.

Hey! Guess where we are here? Of course - this is where it all becomes speculation!!

This is much like the belief in the 'USSR whistleblower' story - it assumes the USSR would certainly know if Apollo was faked (unproven), and it assumes the USSR would tell the world it was a fake (also unfounded), since nothing could be better than to shame those capitalist American pigs (except the massive ransom they could extort to stay silent!). It's speculation upon more speculation.

As for Parkes, perhaps you haven't read this part....

" Keith Aldworth – who was a part of the team at Tidbinbilla – writes,

“When the Apollo missions began, Tidbinbilla’s 64 metre antenna had not been built and as we all know, Parkes Radio Telescope was seconded to NASA for periods of about six weeks around the Apollo missions. At the Parkes site, the equipment necessary for these missions was installed and remained there throughout"

This is much like the belief in the 'USSR whistleblower' story - it assumes the USSR would certainly know if Apollo was faked (unproven), and it assumes the USSR would tell the world it was a fake (also unfounded), since nothing could be better than to shame those capitalist American pigs (except the massive ransom they could extort to stay silent!). It's speculation upon more speculation.

That is a very weak argument considering the Soviet Union was our major enemy and yet, the Soviet Union confirmed the United States landed men on the moon and not only the Soviet Union, but other nations around the world as well. so you don't have an argument to begin with, and never did.

Personally speaking, you are just wasting your time trying to rewrite history from the comfort of your keyboard because you cannot change the reality that men have walked on the moon. Looking at things this way: Evidence proving the reality of the Apollo moon missions have been presented while on the other hand, you have yet to present a single shred of evidence that supports your claims.

Quote

The Moon Landing through Soviet Eyes: A Q&A with Sergei Khrushchev, son of former premier Nikita Khrushchev

A son of the Cold War tells what it was like from the losing side of the Space Race--and how the U.S.S.R.'s space program fizzled after Sputnik and Gagarin

Where were you when Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin landed on the moon?

I remember the moon landing very well. I was 34. I was on vacation with my friends, most of whom worked at the Chelomei design bureau. There was also an officer from the KGB. We were in Ukraine, in Chernobyl. It was exactly the place where they later built the [infamous] nuclear power station. The KGB officer had just returned from Africa, and he had brought a small telescope. So we looked through the telescope, but we didn’t see any moon landing! So it was still questionable to us! [laughs]

How widely was the news of the moon landing disseminated in the Soviet Union in advance of the event?

Of course, you cannot have people land on the moon and just say nothing. It was published in all the newspapers. But if you remember [back then] when Americans spoke of the first man in space, they were always talking of "the first American in space" [not Yuri Gagarin]. The same feeling was prevalent in Russia. There were small articles when Apollo 11 was launched. Actually, there was a small article on the first page of Pravda and then three columns on page five. I looked it up again.

..... Click the link for more information. in Moscow at the time, myself included, had no idea how desperate the Soviet Union was to salvage some prestige from its faltering space program. (In fact, it was only after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 that we learned that the Soviets had tried to send a cosmonaut to the moon, but the rockets repeatedly failed in preliminary tests.)

On July 18, Tass reported that both Luna 15 and Apollo 11 were orbiting the moon. And while there was still no official announcement about the purpose of Luna 15's flight, Izvestia, the official government newspaper; gave a big hint when it said: "It is evident that in scientific terms the landing of a man on the moon provides less than unmanned automatic stations can provide."

6. Footprints in the Moon dust are unexpectedly well preserved, despite the lack of moisture.

The Moon dust has not been weathered like Earth sand and has sharp edges. This allows the Moon dust particles to stick together and hold their shape in the vacuum. The astronauts likened it to "talcum powder or wet sand".

During the Apollo 15 mission, David Scott did an experiment by dropping a hammer and a falcon feather at the same time. Both fell at the same rate and hit the ground at the same time. This proved that he was in a vacuum

You obviously don't know why it's speculation, because it's certainly not based on the above. Don't worry, I'll point it out for you further along...

Yes, well we all know that speculation is your forte... and the only thing that you have since you have NO FACTS to support your case.

Oh, and don't worry... I'll point it out for you further along....

Quote

'Dropped entirely' was meant as 'dropped for the entire event'. I guess I was too tired to even notice. But of course, you take a massive leap of logic to make your own conclusions.

I'm sorry that I'm not psychic and can only base my replies on what you actually post, not what you are allegedly thinking.

Quote

Hey! Guess where we are here? Of course - this is where it all becomes speculation!!

Yes, I know... because again, all you are doing here is speculating. You AGAIN have NO FACTS to support you.

Quote

This is much like the belief in the 'USSR whistleblower' story - it assumes the USSR would certainly know if Apollo was faked (unproven), and it assumes the USSR would tell the world it was a fake (also unfounded), since nothing could be better than to shame those capitalist American pigs (except the massive ransom they could extort to stay silent!). It's speculation upon more speculation.

See what you did there?

You SPECULATED that the USSR would "hold the USA for ransom" and provided NO FACTS TO SUPPORT YOUR POINT.

You have no proof that that is what happened.

You have only speculation based on your warped world view.

Quote

As for Parkes, perhaps you haven't read this part....

" Keith Aldworth – who was a part of the team at Tidbinbilla – writes,

“When the Apollo missions began, Tidbinbilla’s 64 metre antenna had not been built and as we all know, Parkes Radio Telescope was seconded to NASA for periods of about six weeks around the Apollo missions. At the Parkes site, the equipment necessary for these missions was installed and remained there throughout"

So now you know - it was NASA's equipment used at Parkes during Apollo, which was (of course) installed by NASA

Funny how you quote doesn't actually say that NASA supplied the equipment, just that it was "installed and remained there throughout"...

In fact, earlier on that page you picked that quote from, it says this:

Quote

Parkes used NASA payments to enhance the capabilities of the facility

Which to any rational person (in other words, pretty much anyone but you) would indicate that NASA paid Parkes for the use of their facility, then Parkes bought the necessary equipment to upgrade their facility.

Even funnier how you omit the VERY NEXT SENTENCE in your quote above:

Quote

A team of people from Tid was detailed to man the Parkes site

And then there's this a little further on:

Quote

During the lead up to missions, the group travelled up to Parkes to prepare and install equipment.

So here we have, once again from your own source, evidence that shows that while NASA supplied the money for the use of the Parkes site, the Australian government bought and installed the equipment necessary to upgrade the facility, then ran the site themselves.

Geez, Turbs... its SO unlike you to cherry-pick parts of a quote to make it sound like it supports your position...

Oh waitasec... no, that's EXACTLY LIKE YOU TO DO THAT since you have demonstrated NO INTELLECTUAL HONESTY whatsoever.

Quote

You have any other excuses?

The only excuse I can present is that I must have been thinking that it would be possible to have an honest conversation with you about this topic without you resorting to your standard bag of dishonest HB tricks.

For that obviously flawed and mistaken assumption, I do apologize.
I suppose I could ask you what your excuse is for your fabrications, cherry picking, goal post shifting and intellectual dishonesty, but really, no excuses are necessary, since I'd really only be asking you to lie to us some more.

Quote

Well, it is a moot point. It was NASA equipment, as we know.

No, its not a moot point since it was INSTALLED AND MANNED by Australian technicians, as proven by the link you have provided.

You know... it might be a better plan for you to actually stop providing evidence, Turbs.

It seems that everything you present actually works to prove you completely wrong. Not the best strategy someone should take when trying to convince others.

Quote

I have. But thank you for confirming you have no evidence in the document to support your claim

And here you go again with your hypocritical intellectual dishonesty.

YOU ARE MAKING THE CLAIM.

YOU MUST PROVE IT.

ITS YOUR BURDEN OF PROOF, just as it has been all along

Me showing you that your evidence actually works against you is not making a claim, its showing you that your claim is invalid.

However, since you now claim to have read the document, please show us with actual quotes from the document including page numbers, how you think it would be possible to simulate an entire mission without the controllers knowing it was a simulation.

And also, please answer Obviousman's question:

Obviousman, on 29 September 2012 - 03:11 PM, said:

I'm still waiting for Turbs to quote which section of the document they stated supports their views.

Cz

Edited by Czero 101, 30 September 2012 - 04:48 AM.

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe..." - Carl Sagan
"I'm tired of ignorance held up as inspiration, where vicious anti-intellectualism is considered a positive trait, and where uninformed opinion is displayed as fact." - Phil Plait
"For it is the natural tendency of the ignorant to believe what is not true. In order to overcome that tendency it is not sufficient to exhibit the true; it is also necessary to expose and denounce the false." - H. L. Mencken

So very coarse sand is twice as small as your average grain!! Just where did you get such a figure, anyway? It's out of whack..

MID, on 29 September 2012 - 03:51 PM, said:

And the amazing phenomenon we can't duplicate on earth?
You mean the ultra detailed lunar footprints, the lack of dust clouds, or are you speaking of this "halo" effect you don't understand? I suspect all of the afformentioned, but particularly the last one.

I'm obviously referring to this (supposed) 'halo' phenomenon. I've pointed it out many times while you spout on about how I'm not learning anything! Quite ironic, methinks.

And I really do understand this phenomenon. I understand it hasn't a shred of proof. And therefore, I have come to understand this phenomenon is nothing but a convoluted, contrived mess of your own invention..

MID, on 29 September 2012 - 03:51 PM, said:

You want me to send you to the source, NASA?
Yea...you won't call them, or even use their site as the port of knowledge it is. You'll call the NASA reports Government influenced nonsense. W e've already done it! We know what you think, even if you have no idea what you're talking about!

You claim this 'halo' phenomenon exists, so I ask you for proof. All I get back is your inane excuse.

It's your claim. It's your burden to prove it. Stop making excuses.

MID, on 29 September 2012 - 03:51 PM, said:

Micro-fine particles are significant because they allow thinner lsyers of material to be dispersed out, and to lay in dirsrupted layers, appearing , again (and why, I don't really know) depending on lighting conditions and angle, as they do in many images we've shown from the surface, and from on orbit altitudes.This basic physical principal. It should be required to explain this to you again...unless, you're simply screwing around playing a game with us turb.

It's only a basic physical principle if there is proof for it. To just say it is, doesn't cut it.

If micro-fine particles are known to cause such a phenomenon, you need to show the evidence for it!!

Because you've failed to meet your burden of proof, I've searched and searched for information on this phenomenon. But I can't find it anywhere. It appears to be a false claim.

MID, on 29 September 2012 - 03:51 PM, said:

Self adherent particles make a difference in respect to the fact that they allow those crisp footprints to be created, and, they risist low energy disruptive blasts (like a LM DPS from hundreds of feet up ). This results in a thinner dust sheet being dispursed as the craft descends.

This stuff has all been carefully outlined for you before.
Does this lack of understanding you have about lunar dust have something to do with your burden of proving your contention?

It's a self-adherent particle, so let's make it a factor of the 'phenomenon', too! Just say it is.

Lunar samples are not readily available for In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) studies, necessary for preparations for a return to the Moon with landers, robots, and astronauts. Lunar soil simulants have been produced as substitutes for the real thing

Lunar samples are not readily available for In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) studies, necessary for preparations for a return to the Moon with landers, robots, and astronauts. Lunar soil simulants have been produced as substitutes for the real thing;

Lunar samples are not readily available for In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) studies, necessary for preparations for a return to the Moon with landers, robots, and astronauts. Lunar soil simulants have been produced as substitutes for the real thing;

Lunar samples are not readily available for In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) studies, necessary for preparations for a return to the Moon with landers, robots, and astronauts. Lunar soil simulants have been produced as substitutes for the real thing;

Yeah, my guess is that Turbo has been playing fast and loose with the facts and now wants to avoid that being highlighted. They have a record of posting things which, when examined, fail to support what they say.

Lunar samples are not readily available for In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) studies, necessary for preparations for a return to the Moon with landers, robots, and astronauts. Lunar soil simulants have been produced as substitutes for the real thing;

Lunar samples are not readily available for In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) studies, necessary for preparations for a return to the Moon with landers, robots, and astronauts. Lunar soil simulants have been produced as substitutes for the real thing;

Lunar samples are not readily available for In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) studies, necessary for preparations for a return to the Moon with landers, robots, and astronauts. Lunar soil simulants have been produced as substitutes for the real thing;

ScienceDaily (Apr. 21, 2009) — In the 1960s and 1970s, the Apollo Moon Program struggled with a minuscule, yet formidable enemy: sticky lunar dust. Four decades later, a new study reveals that forces compelling lunar dust to cling to surfaces — ruining scientific experiments and endangering astronauts' health —change during the lunar day with the elevation of the sun.

O'Brien started researching lunar dust in 1966 because he feared for an instrument he developed that was to be left behind on the Moon by the Apollo 14 mission. He worried that the device, which measured the flux of charged particles, would end up covered in dust and ruined. Lunar dust is "a bloody nuisance," he says

In his new study, O'Brien analyzed the behavior of dust on horizontal and vertical solar cells in one of the Apollo dust-detecting experiments. On the first morning of the experiment, the lunar module – 130 meters (426 feet) away from the dust detector – took off from the Moon's surface. The blast of exhaust gases completely cleansed a dusty horizontal solar cell, because it was illuminated only by weak early-morning light and thus the adhesive force of dust was faint. But only half the dust covering the vertical cell was removed by the blast, because its surface faced east – into more intense sunlight– and thus the sticky forces were stronger.

You SPECULATED that the USSR would "hold the USA for ransom" and provided NO FACTS TO SUPPORT YOUR POINT.

You have no proof that that is what happened.
.

So you finally get the point! Yes, indeed, I am speculating. There is no proof of it. Just the same way you are speculating about what happened, and you have no proof of it!!

You now see the light, well done.

Czero 101, on 30 September 2012 - 04:35 AM, said:

Funny how you quote doesn't actually say that NASA supplied the equipment, just that it was "installed and remained there throughout"...

Which to any rational person (in other words, pretty much anyone but you) would indicate that NASA paid Parkes for the use of their facility, then Parkes bought the necessary equipment to upgrade their facility.

So here we have, once again from your own source, evidence that shows that while NASA supplied the money for the use of the Parkes site, the Australian government bought and installed the equipment necessary to upgrade the facility, then ran the site themselves.

Let's review this point...

"Parkes Radio Telescope was seconded to NASA for periods of about six weeks around the Apollo missions"

Hmm...what do you think that means? You think NASA is controlling Parkes during Apollo, or is under control of Aussies who worked there? It's pretty clear who is running the show, and who is following their orders and instructions.

Apollo was a NASA project. It was not a joint NASA-Australian project. It was not a joint NASA-Grumman/Honeywell/et al project. It was a NASA project, period. And like most large-scale projects, this included external contributors. Like Grumman, Honeywell, etc. and like the Australians, Africans, etc. employed by NASA for their Apollo project.

You have this bizarro notion that NASA just let the Australians control the show, or something like that.

Czero 101, on 30 September 2012 - 04:35 AM, said:

However, since you now claim to have read the document, please show us with actual quotes from the document including page numbers, how you think it would be possible to simulate an entire mission without the controllers knowing it was a simulation.

You brought up the document, right?

Sure you did.

Do you remember any possible reason you would have brought up the document?

If you can answer that, you'll realize who has the original claim about the document, and who has the burden of proving it, too!!

Yeah, my guess is that Turbo has been playing fast and loose with the facts and now wants to avoid that being highlighted. They have a record of posting things which, when examined, fail to support what they say.

Turbonium has been posting links that have actually confirmed the reality of the Apollo moon missions.

Here's another example from the link he posted.

Quote

O'Brien used data from the matchbox-sized Dust Detector Experiments deployed on the Moon's surface in 1969 during the Apollo 11 and Apollo 12 missions.